Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call

Shoe. · 11-19-2013, 11:21 AM

Fine work Danno, fine work indeed

dam1953 · 11-19-2013, 11:22 AM

The sad thing is these two calls may have translated to a two game differential for the Saints record. Pats win one, Panthers win one. Saints loose two.

SmashMouth · 11-19-2013, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Danno

Best PATS pic of the year!!!

Great illustration ... just emailed Peter King this link, just for fun.

exile · 11-19-2013, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by dam1953

The sad thing is these two calls may have translated to a two game differential for the Saints record. Pats win one, Panthers win one. Saints loose two.

I prefer it this way honestly. It breaks their hearts more when they think they have actually have a chance.

exile · 11-19-2013, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by SmashMouth

Great illustration ... just emailed Peter King this link, just for fun.

Ohhhhh, that should be fun!

SloMotion · 11-19-2013, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Budsdrinker

I don't think PI should have been called to give them the ball at the 1 but I do think holding or illegal contact should have been called for 5 yards and an un-timed down given.

Agreed ... there was definitely a defensive holding call in there somewhere ...

.

RaginCajun83 · 11-19-2013, 11:43 AM

Ball was in the air so it's PI

st thomas · 11-19-2013, 12:16 PM

there will always be the human factor, until they replay calls and non calls we will have to put up with it.

TheOak · 11-19-2013, 12:21 PM

There were so many things wrong with that play and call.

1. Ball was severely under thrown.
2. Luke Kuechly never looked back for the ball.
3. Flag was thrown, then picked up and no explanation was given.
4. Gronk never tried to come back for the ball.

Even if the Refs want to argue it was a non-foul because the ball was un-catchable making it not pass interference.The following two penalties would apply.

Illegal Contact - That is called anywhere any time during a play.
Holding - Which was clearly the case.

Bill Belichick ~ Dont let the game get close enough for a Referee's call to decide the game.

pinch · 11-19-2013, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by TheOak

There were so many things wrong with that play and call.

1. Ball was severely under thrown.
2. Luke Kuechly never looked back for the ball.
3. Flag was thrown, then picked up and no explanation was given.
4. Gronk never tried to come back for the ball.

Even if the Refs want to argue it was a non-foul because the ball was un-catchable making it not pass interference.The following two penalties would apply.

Illegal Contact - That is called anywhere any time during a play.
Holding - Which was clearly the case.

Bill Belichick ~ Dont let the game get close enough for a Referee's call to decide the game.

By the rule book you're probably right, but I like the non-call because the ball wasn't catchable and like you said Gronk never made a movement toward the ball. That was on Gronk for not being dramatic enough.

11-19-2013, 11:21 AM	#11
Shoe. 500th Post Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Hub City Posts: 576	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Fine work Danno, fine work indeed st thomas likes this.

11-19-2013, 11:22 AM	#12
dam1953 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: SW Ohio Posts: 4,645	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call The sad thing is these two calls may have translated to a two game differential for the Saints record. Pats win one, Panthers win one. Saints loose two.

11-19-2013, 11:24 AM	#13
SmashMouth I donated, did you? Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Mandeville, LA Posts: 38,201 Blog Entries: 29	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by Danno Best PATS pic of the year!!! Great illustration ... just emailed Peter King this link, just for fun. exile likes this.

11-19-2013, 11:24 AM	#14
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by dam1953 The sad thing is these two calls may have translated to a two game differential for the Saints record. Pats win one, Panthers win one. Saints loose two. I prefer it this way honestly. It breaks their hearts more when they think they have actually have a chance.
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608

11-19-2013, 11:30 AM	#15
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by SmashMouth Great illustration ... just emailed Peter King this link, just for fun. Ohhhhh, that should be fun! SmashMouth likes this.
exile Cake or Death? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 3,608

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

11-19-2013, 11:41 AM	#16
SloMotion 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 6,776 Blog Entries: 15	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by Budsdrinker I don't think PI should have been called to give them the ball at the 1 but I do think holding or illegal contact should have been called for 5 yards and an un-timed down given. Agreed ... there was definitely a defensive holding call in there somewhere ... .

11-19-2013, 11:43 AM	#17
RaginCajun83 Hou Saints Fan Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Houston, Tx Posts: 5,050	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Ball was in the air so it's PI SloMotion likes this.

11-19-2013, 12:16 PM	#18
st thomas Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: lafayette Posts: 7,753	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call there will always be the human factor, until they replay calls and non calls we will have to put up with it.

11-19-2013, 12:21 PM	#19
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,027	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call There were so many things wrong with that play and call. 1. Ball was severely under thrown. 2. Luke Kuechly never looked back for the ball. 3. Flag was thrown, then picked up and no explanation was given. 4. Gronk never tried to come back for the ball. Even if the Refs want to argue it was a non-foul because the ball was un-catchable making it not pass interference.The following two penalties would apply. Illegal Contact - That is called anywhere any time during a play. Holding - Which was clearly the case. Bill Belichick ~ Dont let the game get close enough for a Referee's call to decide the game. SloMotion likes this.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

11-19-2013, 02:05 PM	#20
pinch 100th Post Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Diamondhead, MS Posts: 272 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call Originally Posted by TheOak There were so many things wrong with that play and call. 1. Ball was severely under thrown. 2. Luke Kuechly never looked back for the ball. 3. Flag was thrown, then picked up and no explanation was given. 4. Gronk never tried to come back for the ball. Even if the Refs want to argue it was a non-foul because the ball was un-catchable making it not pass interference.The following two penalties would apply. Illegal Contact - That is called anywhere any time during a play. Holding - Which was clearly the case. Bill Belichick ~ Dont let the game get close enough for a Referee's call to decide the game. By the rule book you're probably right, but I like the non-call because the ball wasn't catchable and like you said Gronk never made a movement toward the ball. That was on Gronk for not being dramatic enough.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/62070-now-controversy-moves-gronkowski-interference-call.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Now the controversy moves to the Gronkowski interference call	This thread	Refback	11-19-2013 12:34 PM	4
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	11-19-2013 10:44 AM	2